IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
|
|
- Mervyn Palmer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 418 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-480-RRR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FILED UNDER SEAL PA ADVISORS LLC S MOTION IN LIMINE AND DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF GERALD J. MOSSINGHOFF Dockets.Justia.com
2 Table of Contents Page No. I. Introduction..3 II. III. IV. Mr. Mossinghoff s Opinion on Breach of the Duty of Candor and Good Faith Should Be Excluded As It Is Merely Cumulative of the Peters Opinion and Lacks Any Independent Analysis....4 Mr. Mossinghoff s New Opinion That the Dasan and Siefert Patents Are Material Because They Are Inconsistent With Positions Taken By The Applicant Should Be Excluded As Untimely.9 Mr. Mossinghoff s Recitation of Patent Law and Procedures Would Not Aid the Court as Finder of Fact and Should be Excluded as Well...11 V. Conclusion..12 1
3 Table of Authorities Page No. Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 53 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 9 Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, 2004 WL (D. Del., Nov. 5, 2004) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)) , 9 Digital Control Inc. v. The Charles Machine Works, 437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006) North American Oil Co., Inc. v. Star Brite, 46 Fed.Appx. 629 (Fed. Cir. 2002)...9 Robert S. v. Stetson School, Inc., 256 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2001)...9 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. IBM Corp., 2005 WL (W.D. Wis., Aug. 29, 2005) Federal Rule of Evidence Federal Rule of Evidence 403 4, 5 Federal Rule of Evidence , 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure CFR , 10 2
4 I. Introduction. In support of their claim that United States Patent No. 6,199,067 ( the 067 Patent ) is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct in the prosecution of the patent, Google, Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. (collectively, the Defendants ) have relied on the expert opinion testimony of Stanley J. Mossinghoff. Mr. Mossinghoff s testimony is deficient in several ways, primarily in that it is, at base, simply the restatement of the opinion of another of defendants experts, Stanley Peters, that certain references not disclosed to the USPTO during the prosecution of the 067 patent are material. As such, Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion does not in any way aid the trier of fact, contains no independent analysis, is irrelevant, and is, at best, cumulative. Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion is nothing more than: (1) a restatement of a clear rule of law; and (2) a restatement of another expert s opinion, without any independent analysis of that opinion. Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion, contained in as single sentence of his expert report, is that the inventor of the 067 patent, and the attorney that prosecuted the patent, breached their duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO in failing to disclose two patents. The statement that it may be a breach of a duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO to fail to disclose material prior art to the USPTO is not a statement of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, as required by FRE 702. It is simply a statement of the clearly established law. Thus, the relevant part of Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion is that the alleged prior art is material. However, this materiality opinion is not that of Mr. Mossinghoff. It comes entirely from defendants expert Mr. Peters. Mr. Mossinghoff did not do any independent analysis of the materiality of the alleged prior art at issue, and can contribute nothing to the issue of materiality. 3
5 Indeed, he has admittedly not read the relevant prior art, and states that he does not even understand the 067 patent. Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion is thus irrelevant, as it contributes nothing to the understanding of the trier of fact, and cannot be said to apply relevant reliable (or really any) principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case, as required by Rule 702. The opinion neither rests on a reliable foundation nor is relevant to the task at hand as required by Daubert, and should be excluded. The opinion is moreover wholly cumulative, as it merely repeats the conclusions of another expert without adding anything to or providing an independent evaluation of that opinion, and should be excluded on that basis as well. Fed. R. Evid II. Mr. Mossinghoff s Opinion on Breach of the Duty of Candor and Good Faith Should Be Excluded As It Is Merely Cumulative of the Peters Opinion and Lacks Any Independent Analysis. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Further, under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993), the Federal Rules of Evidence assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. (Emphasis added). Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probably or less probable then it would be without the evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 401. But even if relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is 4
6 outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The expert opinion testimony Mr. Mossinghoff would present in this case is not relevant, and it is really no expert opinion at all: rather it is a restatement of the opinion of another expert, Mr. Peters. Moreover, as a mere restatement, without any independent analysis whatsoever, it cannot be said to be the application of principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case that is required under FRE 702. And even if this restatement of another expert s opinion could somehow be said to be relevant (which it is not), it is clearly cumulative, and should be excluded as such. Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion, contained in paragraph 18 of his expert report, is that Mr. Gellar, the inventor of the 067 patent, and the attorney that prosecuted the 067 patent, breached their duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO in failing to disclose three patents 1 cited in an International Search Report. Hoffman Declaration in Support of PA Advisors LLC s Motion In Limine And Daubert Motion To Exclude Testimony of Gerald J. Mossinghoff ( Hofman Decl. ), Ex. A, December 31, 2009 Expert Report of The Honorable Gerald J. Mossinghoff ( Mossinghoff Report ), 18. The support for this conclusion, as stated in the following sentences in paragraph 18 (starting with According to Mr. Peters ) is based entirely upon Mr. Peters opinion. As Mr. Mossinghoff admitted at his deposition, these sentences are based solely on Mr. Peters opinion, and Mr. Mossinghoff has no independent opinion on materiality. Mossinghoff Dep. at 95:9-98:2. 1 Although Mr. Mossinghoff admits that the third patent cited in the ISR, the Ahn patent, plays no part in his opinion, as Mr. Peters opinion does not include the Ahn reference and my opinion is based on Mr. Peters' opinion. Hoffman Decl., Ex. B, Feb. 12, 2010, Deposition of Gerald J. Mossinghoff ( Mossinghoff Dep. ) at 122:2-8. 5
7 As one district court held in striking a previous opinion by Mr. Mossinghoff, it is questionable whether testimony to a federal judge on the duty of candor to the PTO would ever be likely to be useful testimony. See Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. IBM Corp., 2005 WL , *1 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 29, 2005) ( Fraud on the patent office is an equitable claim that is tried to the court. It is not necessary to have an expert educate a judge about the duty of candor or about the handling of patent applications by the patent office. ). Certainly in this case, the statement that it is a breach of a duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO to fail to disclose material prior art to the USPTO is not a statement of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, as required by FRE 702. It is simply a statement of the clearly established law as Mr. Mossinghoff himself makes clear, 37 CFR 1.56 (Rule 56 of the MPEP) expressly requires the inventor and prosecuting attorney to disclose material prior art of which they are aware. Mossinghoff Report, 11, Thus, the support for Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion is that the Dasan and Siefert patents are material pieces of prior art (Mossinghoff Report, 18), because, while the prior art that was disclosed during the prosecution of the 067 patent does not... discuss the use of user profiles or retrieving search results that reflect a user s social, cultural, educational, economic background or psychological profile, [t]he Dasan and Seifert patents disclose the use of user profiles. Id. The implied argument (made expressly in a passage cited from Mr. Peters expert report in the paragraph preceding 2 Although, even then, there can be no inequitable conduct without an intent to deceive. Mossinghoff acknowledges this in his deposition, although he offers no opinion on intent. Mossinghoff Dep. at 45:5-16; 79:24-80:3. Tellingly, Mr. Mossinghoff s expert report makes no mention whatsoever of the requirement of a finding of an intent to deceive. 6
8 Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion in paragraph 18 of his report), is that the prior art cited in the 067 application, in combination with Dasan and Siefert, render the 067 patent obvious. Id. at 17. However, this materiality opinion is not that of Mr. Mossinghoff. Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion comes entirely from defendants other expert Mr. Peters. Mr. Mossinghoff provides no independent analysis whatsoever. See, e.g., Mossinghoff Dep. at 64:6-10 ( Q: So outside of the opinion provided by Mr. Peters, do you have any separate opinion as to whether the undisclosed prior art establishes a prima facie case of unpatentability -- A. No. ); Id. at 77:1-7 ( Q. Okay. So just so that we're clear: You've expressed no independent opinion about obviousness in this case; right? A. That is correct -- I'm relying upon Dr. Peters or Mr. Peters' opinion that I state in my report. ). The central support for his opinion in paragraph 18 of Mr. Mossinghoff s report that the Dasan and Siefert patents are material pieces of prior art because they disclose the use of user profiles comes entirely from Mr. Peters opinion: Q: Does the Dasan patent disclose the use of user profiles? A. According to Mr. Peters, it does. And I'm relying upon that. Q. Did you independently verify that? A. No. I don't believe I'm capable of doing that. Q. Does the Siefert patent disclose the use of user profiles? A. Same answer. According to Mr. Peters, it does have that feature.... Q. Did you independently verify whether the Siefert patent discloses the use of user profiles? A. No. No. Id. at 88:23-89:14. Mr. Mossinghoff did not do any independent analysis of the materiality of the alleged prior art at issue on his own, and indeed, by his own admission, would be incapable of doing any such analysis. Thus: 7
9 Mr. Mossinghoff not only has no technical opinion about the Dasan and Siefert patents, in preparing his report he only scanned these references, without trying to read or understand them. Id. at 38:17-39:8. Mr. Mossinghoff did not read the prior art with which Dasan and Siefert allegedly combine to create obviousness in any way in which I would try to understand them. Id. at 39:18-40:10. Mr. Mossinghoff, by his own admission, does not understand the Geller patent (id. at 38:8-14: Q. What is your understanding of the invention of the Geller patent? A. I really don't have one. I didn't understand it. I read it twice when I was preparing the report, and twice yesterday, and I still don't understand it ), and has not bothered to read the Court s claim construction (id. at 40:11-13). While Mr. Mossinghoff admits that for an undisclosed reference to be material, it must be non-cumulative (id. at 58:14-25), his report contains no mention of a consideration of cumulativeness. Mr. Mossinghoff cannot even be said to offer an opinion on the quality or accuracy of the Peters opinion on materiality. He admits he did not read or understand the entire Peters report, reading only the section on materiality, and relying solely on the one paragraph Mr. Mossinghoff quotes in paragraph 17 of his report. Id. at 41:13-24; 42: Most strikingly, Mr. Mossinghoff admits that even if Mr. Peters were to admit that his materiality analysis is wrong, and that the prior art cited to the PTO did disclose the use of user profiles, Mr. Mossinghoff would not reach any independent conclusions. He would rely on whatever explanation Mr. Peters would give for the error. Id. at 100:
10 Thus, Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion is nothing more than: (1) a restatement or a clear rule of law; and (2) a restatement of another expert s opinion, without any independent analysis of that opinion. Mr. Mossinghoff s opinion is thus irrelevant, as it contributes nothing to the understanding of the trier of fact, and cannot be said to apply relevant reliable (or really any) principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case, as required by Rule 702. The opinion neither rests on a reliable foundation nor and is relevant to the task at hand as required by Daubert, and should be excluded. The opinion is moreover wholly cumulative, as it merely repeats the conclusions of another expert without adding anything to or providing an independent evaluation of that opinion, and should be excluded on that basis as well. See North American Oil Co., Inc. v. Star Brite, 46 Fed.Appx. 629, 632 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Expert's opinion properly excluded as cumulative, absent showing that expert had special expertise or knowledge different from previously engaged expert); Robert S. v. Stetson School, Inc., 256 F.3d 159, 170 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony where the expert "addressed the same issues" as another witness); Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 53, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("Expert testimony presents no exception" to the "general rule" that a "district judge has discretion to exclude evidence if it is cumulative of evidence already in the record"). III. Mr. Mossinghoff s New Opinion That the Dasan and Siefert Patents Are Material Because They Are Inconsistent With Positions Taken By The Applicant Should Be Excluded As Untimely. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(2)(B)(i) requires expert testimony to be disclosed in a written report containing a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and all the basis and reasons for them. At his deposition, Mr. Mossinghoff disclosed for the first time a new opinion, not included in his expert report: that the Dasan 9
11 and Siefert patents are material under the Rule 56 standard that information is material to patentability when... [i]t refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in... asserting an argument of patentability. MPEP 1.56 (Rule 56) at (b)(2)(ii); 37 CFR Mr. Mossinghoff s new opinion is that this standard for materiality is met because the missing references would have been inherently inconsistent with Mr. Geller and his attorney s claims of patentability. Mossinghoff Dep. at 46: As an initial matter, it is important to note that this new opinion is again nothing but the restatement of the regulations defining materiality, and the restatement of Mr. Peters opinion that the missing references are in fact material. However, even if there were any additional content to this opinion beyond the restatement of law and of the Peters opinion, Mr. Mossinghoff s new opinion would nevertheless still be untimely, because it is not disclosed in his Rule 26 expert report. See Mossinghoff Dep. at 47:21-49:17 ( Yeah, I don t see that I ve disclosed it specifically here. ); 50:25-51:9 ( That part of it is not... specifically articulated in my report, and that s why I want to be very clear at this deposition that is my opinion, and I would propose to testify to that effect. ). Mr. Mossinghoff claims that, even though the new opinion is admittedly not specifically disclosed in his report, it is not new, because it is inherent in his citation of Peters opinion that the Dasan and Siefert patents render the 067 patent obvious, when combined with his citation to Digital Control Inc. v. The Charles Machine Works, 437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006), because Digital Control said that submitting a claim, and in effect, telling the Patent Office that it s an allowable claim, and not disclosing references which would make it not allowable, is inconstant with a position the applicant took. 10
12 Mossinghoff Dep. at 47:21-48:13. First of all, this argument again emphasizes that Mr. Mossinghoff s opinions are nothing more than the application of clearly stated regulations or case law to another experts opinion, and therefore lack any independent utility or relevance. Second of all, while Mr. Mossinghoff does quote extensively from Digital Control in his report (Mossinghoff Report, 12), he does not quote or cite to Digital Control for a rule that not disclosing references which would make [an application] not allowable, is inconstant with position the applicant took. Mr. Mossinghoff s claim that by citing to one holding in a case, he has disclosed an opinion that might be derived from another holding in the same case, simply vitiates the disclosure requirements of Rule 26. IV. Mr. Mossinghoff s Recitation of Patent Law and Procedures Would Not Aid the Court as Finder of Fact and Should be Excluded as Well. Besides his non-opinion, Mossinghoff s report offers little more than recitations of patent law and procedures, relying primarily on extensive summaries of and quotations from readily available sources such as the U.S. Code, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, CFR, and federal case law. See, e.g., Mossinghoff Report, 7, 11, 12, 15, 19. While there may be some circumstances involving complex questions of internal USPTO procedure to which an expert having experience with such procedures might speak, Mr. Mossinghoff s testimony that material references (assuming they are truly material) should be disclosed simply recites the plain rule of law and does not assist the trier of fact (the Court). See, e.g., Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, 2004 WL (D. Del., Nov. 5, 2004) (excluding expert report and testimony of Mossinghoff on internal patent procedures). Mr. Mossinghoff s entire report and testimony, including that related to patent law and regulations, should be excluded. 11
13 V. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exclude the testimony of Mr. Mossinghoff regarding inequitable conduct. 12
14 Dated: February 19, 2010 Andrew W. Spangler LEAD COUNSEL SPANGLER LAW P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, Texas (903) (903) (fax) David M. Pridham LAW OFFICE OF DAVID PRIDHAM 25 Linden Road Barrington, Rhode Island (401) (401) (fax) John M. Bustamante Texas Bar No BUSTAMANTE, P.C. 54 Rainey Street, No. 721 Austin, Texas Tel Fax Kip Glasscock Texas State Bar No KIP GLASSCOCK P.C. 550 Fannin, Suite 1350 Beaumont, TX Tel: (409) Fax: (409) Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Adam Hoffman Marc A. Fenster, CA Bar No CA Bar No Andrew Weiss CA Bar No Adam Hoffman CA Bar No RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA (310) (310) (fax) Patrick R. Anderson PATRICK R. ANDERSON PLLC 4225 Miller Rd, Bldg. B-9, Suite 358 Flint, MI (810) (248) (fax) Debera W. Hepburn, Texas Bar No HEPBURN LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box Carrollton, TX Telephone: 214/ Facsimile: 888/ Elizabeth A. Wiley Texas State Bar No THE WILEY FIRM PC P.O. Box Austin, Texas Telephone: (512) Facsimile: (512)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served today with a copy of this document via the Court s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. \s\ Adam Hoffman Adam Hoffman 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 433 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.
Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC F/K/A POLARIS IP, LLC, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338
Case 2:15-cv-00961-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 16-06084-CV-SJ-ODS JET MIDWEST TECHNIK,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION * * * * * * * * *
Fontenot v. Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana Doc. 131 JONI FONTENOT v. SAFETY COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cr-00096-P Document 67 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 514 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. 3:08-CR-0096-P
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al v. Hitachi Ltd et al Doc. 101 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, METCO BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IMPERIAL TRADING CO., INC., ET AL. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CAS. CO. OF AMERICA ORDER AND REASONS
Imperial Trading Company, Inc. et al v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America Doc. 330 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IMPERIAL TRADING CO., INC., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
More informationQualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)
Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C. 16506 FM 529, Suite 115 Houston,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 167 BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. NO. 2:07-CV-371-CE GOOGLE, INC., et al. PLAINTIFF'S
More informationTHE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE EXPERT WITNESSES DIVIDER 6 Professor Michael Johnson OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able to: 1. Distinguish
More informationCase 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778
Case 3:13-cv-04987-M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. NINTENDO
More informationCase 5:15-cv NC Document 372 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-000-nc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 0) Email: mfenster@raklaw.com Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN ) Email: bwang@raklaw.com Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN ) Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ESN, LLC, v. Plaintiff, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and CISCO-LINKSYS, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationPost-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony. June 8, Steve Schaefer Principal
June 8, 2016 Post-Grant for Practitioners Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony Steve Schaefer Principal John Adkisson Principal Thomas Rozylowicz Principal Agenda #FishWebinar
More informationCase4:07-cv PJH Document833-1 Filed09/09/10 Page1 of 5
Case:0-cv-0-PJH Document- Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 00) Jason McDonell (SBN 0) Elaine Wallace (SBN ) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: ()
More informationCase 2:10-cv TJW Document 1 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-00430-TJW Document 1 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 9 LOCHNER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC., Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. LENOVO (UNITED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
-BLM Leeds, LP v. United States of America Doc. 1 LEEDS LP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 0CV0 BTM (BLM) 1 1 1 1 0 1 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Stallion Heavy Haulers, LP v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION STALLION HEAVY HAULERS, LP, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone
More informationCase 2:11-cv RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118
Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CORBIN BERNSEN Plaintiff, v. ACTION NO.
More informationBest Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct
PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORP. AND REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Petitioners v. IMMUNEX CORPORATION,
More informationCase 1:06-cv Document 695 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-03173 Document 695 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KATHLEEN PAINE, as Guardian of the Estate of CHRISTINA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,
More informationscc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 16:37:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 14
10-15973-scc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 163703 Main Document Pg 1 of 14 Peter A. Ivanick Allison H. Weiss 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Tel (212) 259-8000 Fax (212)
More informationPA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B. Dockets.Justia.com
PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, Civil Action
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 13-20772 Plaintiff, HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN v. RASMIEH YOUSEF ODEH, Defendant. / GOVERNMENT
More informationCase 1:07-cv WDM -MJW Document Filed 04/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM -MJW Document 304-1 Filed 04/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW DEBBIE ULIBARRI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant. IN THE UNITED
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.
PlainSite Legal Document Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv-01252 Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al Document 2163 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:13-cv-00682-ALM Document 73 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1103 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION CORINTH INVESTOR HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ATRIUM MEDICAL
More informationCase4:09-cv CW Document75 Filed06/11/09 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-CW Document Filed0//0 Page of Michael G. Woods, # Timothy J. Buchanan, # 00 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & P.O. Box River Park Place East Fresno, CA 0- Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: ()
More informationCase 1:10-cr LMB Document 192 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 1711
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 192 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 1711 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal
More informationCase 1:15-cv WJM-KLM Document 136 Filed 05/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01974-WJM-KLM Document 136 Filed 05/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01974-WJM-KLM DAVID MUELLER v. Plaintiff
More informationCase 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case :04-cv-000-TJW Document 44 Filed 0/1/007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O MICRO INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff, v. BEYOND INNOVATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, lj}{iversita DEGLI STUDI di CAGLIARI, CENTRE NATIONAL de la RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE, and L'UNIVERSITE de MONTPELLIER,
More informationCase 3:10-cv H-KSC Document 239 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 9
Case :0-cv-0-H-KSC Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Frederick A. Lorig (Bar No. 0) fredlorig@quinnemanuel.com Christopher A. Mathews (Bar No. 0) chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
MITCHELL + COMPANY Brian E. Mitchell (SBN 0) brian.mitchell@mcolawoffices.com Marcel F. De Armas (SBN ) mdearmas@mcolawoffices.com Embarcadero Center, Suite 00 San Francisco, California 1 Tel: -- Fax:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ESN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and CISCO-LINKSYS, LLC,
More informationCase 1:16-cv CMA Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2017 Page 1 of 6 ANDREA ROSSI and LEONARDO CORPORATION, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 1:16-cv-21199-CIV-ALTONAGA/O
More informationCase 1:10-cv MEA Document 284 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:10-cv-02333-MEA Document 284 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE LEE ENTERPRISES,
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 347 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 347 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More information9i;RK, U.S~CE'F,T COURT
Case 3:10-cv-01033-F Document 270 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID 10800 U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRirT ~_P_._. UFT JAN 2 5 2013 NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of 0 MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (SBN ) mike.bettinger@klgates.com TIMOTHY P. WALKER (SBN 000) timothy.walker@klgates.com HAROLD H. DAVIS, JR. (SBN ) harold.davis@klgates.com
More informationBEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law
ROSS BEGELMAN* MARC M. ORLOW JORDAN R. IRWIN REGINA D. POSERINA MEMBER NEW JERSEY & PENNSYLVANIA BARS *MEMBER NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA & NEW YORK BARS BEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law Cherry Hill
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Bailey v. B.S. Quarries, Inc. et al Doc. 245 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PAULINE M. BAILEY, : No. 3:13cv3006 Administrator of the Estate of Wesley : Sherwood,
More informationCase: 2:11-cv JCH Doc. #: 66 Filed: 12/05/12 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 2505
Case: 2:11-cv-00069-JCH Doc. #: 66 Filed: 12/05/12 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 2505 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION ATHENA BACHTEL, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) Case
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Equal Opportunity Employment ) CASE NO. 1:10 CV 2882 Commission, ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) Vs. ) ) Kaplan Higher
More informationChapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted
Chapter 1900 Protest 1901 Protest Under 37 CFR 1.291 1901.01 Who Can Protest 1901.02 Information Which Can Be Relied on in Protest 1901.03 How Protest Is Submitted 1901.04 When Should the Protest Be Submitted
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Patel v. Patel et al Doc. 113 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHAMPAKBHAI PATEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-17-881-D MAHENDRA KUMAR PATEL, et al., Defendants. O R D E
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON
JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice LISA LYNNE RUSSELL, Chief GUILLERMO A. MONTERO, Assistant Chief SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar
More informationOverview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence
Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence July 21, 2016 Drew DeVoogd, Member Patent Trial Proceedings in the United States In patent matters, trials typically occur in the federal
More informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
American Navigation Systems, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al Doc. 1 1 KALPANA SRINIVASAN (S.B. #0) 01 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 0 Los Angeles, California 00-0 Telephone: --0 Facsimile: --0
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS
McCrary v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor, L.L.C. Doc. 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAMES MCCRARY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 14-880 JOHN W. STONE OIL DISTRIBUTOR, L.L.C. SECTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SANDISK CORP., v. Plaintiff, OPINION
More informationCase 1:08-cv JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-01289-JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DICK ANTHONY HELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 08-01289 (JEB v. DISTRICT
More informationCase 2:03-cv GLL Document 293 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 19
Case 2:03-cv-01512-GLL Document 293 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM I INC. I Plaintiff/Counter Defendant
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION; and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, vs. HOSPIRA, INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. Case No.:1-cv-1-H-RBB ORDER: (1)
More informationCase 1:14-cv TSC Document 108 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 116
Case 1:14-cv-00857-TSC Document 108 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 116 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 4:14-cv-00435-BRW Document 132 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CONNIE JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of
More informationcp-rtified ri-ainscripl
FPX, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al Doc. Att. Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION 1 FPX, LLC d/b/a FIREPOND, Civil Action No. :0-cv-001-TJW-CE Individually
More informationCase 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cr-00-EDL Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN Chief, Criminal Division WENDY THOMAS (NYBN 0 Special Assistant United States
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Oracle USA, Inc. et al v. Rimini Street, Inc. et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 1 1 1 ORACLE USA, INC.; et al., v. Plaintiffs, RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation;
More informationCourt granted Defendants motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Plaintiffs damages
Case 1:04-cv-09866-LTS-HBP Document 679 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x IN RE PFIZER INC.
More informationE-FILED on 10/15/10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
E-FILED on // IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE AOL LLC, YAHOO! IAC SEARCH &MEDIA, and LYCOS
More informationCase 1:13-cv GBL-TCB Document 33 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 2015
Case 1:13-cv-01566-GBL-TCB Document 33 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division CONKWEST, INC. Plaintiff, v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 221 Filed 12/02/13 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 1125 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO. 12-20218
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No. 6:13-cv-1839-Orl-40TBS ORDER
Halaoui v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Doc. 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MUHAMAD M. HALAOUI, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:13-cv-1839-Orl-40TBS RENAISSANCE HOTEL
More information2:12-cr SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 United States of America, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Criminal Case No.
More information2:13-cv VAR-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 11/20/14 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 586 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
2:13-cv-12217-VAR-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 11/20/14 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 586 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-12217-VAR-RSW v.
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ORDER. Presently before the court is the Noorda defendants 1 motion in limine no. 1 to exclude Aaron
Allstate Insurance Company et al vs. Nassiri, et al., Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, OBTEEN N. NASSIRI, D.C., et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. et al Doc. 447 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL
More informationCase 5:10-cv FB-NSN Document 28 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB-NSN Document 28 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JOHN EAKIN, Plaintiff, NO. SA-10-CA-0784-FB-NN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DAUBERT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ZIILABS INC., LTD., v. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., ET AL., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-203-JRG-RSP
More informationCase 1:11-cv WJM-CBS Document 127 Filed 12/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01760-WJM-CBS Document 127 Filed 12/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 Civil Action No. 11-cv-01760-WJM-CBS GEORGE F. LANDEGGER, and WHITTEMORE COLLECTION, LTD., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS Petitioner. ILLUMINA, INC.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS Petitioner v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 Trial No. 2014-01093 PETITIONER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore
358 Liberation LLC v. Country Mutual Insurance Company Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Case No. 15-cv-01758-RM-STV 358 LIBERATION LLC, v.
More informationTRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY ROBERT BLECKER
Pg 1 of 12 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. JOANNE NEALE, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO (JLL) Plaintiffs, : OPINION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOANNE NEALE, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4407 (JLL) Plaintiffs, : OPINION V. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,: etal, Dockets.Justia.com
More informationCase 1:08-cv GJQ Doc #377 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#7955 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-00361-GJQ Doc #377 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#7955 JAMES B. HURLEY and BRANDI HURLEY, jointly and severally, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Texas Northern District Court Case No. 3:11-cv Greene et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al.
PlainSite Legal Document Texas Northern District Court Case No. 3:11-cv-00207 Greene et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al Document 551 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer Corporation
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Western District Court Case No. 4:14-cv BCW Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs, Inc. et al.
PlainSite Legal Document Missouri Western District Court Case No. 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs, Inc. et al Document 175 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-13-2004 Maldonado v. Olander Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-2114 Follow this and
More informationCase 3:16-md VC Document 2866 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 7
Case :-md-0-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC Aimee H. Wagstaff (SBN 0 Aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com David J. Wool (SBN David.Wool@andruswagstaff.com W. Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO
More informationThe New PTAB: Best Practices
The New PTAB: Best Practices Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association Washington in the West Conference January 29, 2013 Los Angeles, California Jeffrey B. Robertson Administrative Patent Judge
More informationCase 9:06-cv RHC Document 29 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Case 9:06-cv-0055-RHC Document 9 Filed /06/006 Page of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION BLACKBOARD, INC. Plaintiff, v. DESIRELEARN, INC, Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Clemons v. Google, Inc. Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION RICHARD CLEMONS, v. GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00963-AJT-TCB
More informationCase 1:06-cv JSR Document 69 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11. x : : : : : : : : : x. In this action, plaintiff New York University ( NYU ) alleges
Case 106-cv-05274-JSR Document 69 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, AUTODESK, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DULUTH DIVISION
Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas Doc. 90 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DULUTH DIVISION VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; CAPITOL RECORDS,
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document494 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com PHILIP W. MARSH, State Bar No. phil@agilityiplaw.com
More informationCase 5:14-cv BLF Document 293 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-blf Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FITNESS ANYWHERE LLC, Plaintiff, v. WOSS ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-blf
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Digital Background Corporation v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION DIGITAL BACKGROUND CORPORATION, vs. APPLE, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:11-cv-05210-SS Document 501 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:31305 Present: The Honorable Suzanne H. Segal, United States Magistrate Judge Marlene Ramirez None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
More informationCAUSE NO PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Respectfully submitted, ROB WILEY, P.C.
CAUSE NO. 11-13467 Filed 12 December 31 P4:25 Gary Fitzsimmons District Clerk Dallas District CARLOTTA HOWARD, v. Plaintiff, STATE OF TEXAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No AARON C. BORING and CHRISTINE BORING, husband and wife respectively, Appellants,
Aaron Boring, et al v. Google Inc Doc. 309828424 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-2350 AARON C. BORING and CHRISTINE BORING, husband and wife respectively, Appellants, v. GOOGLE
More informationRequest for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element is Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/20/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-08428, and on FDsys.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United
More information